The intervention of magistrates on investigations conducted by intelligence services is limited and punctual.
- Congress Sanchez indicts the CNI and the Supreme Court judge who controls it for spying against libertarians
- mold CNI. retired without reason
“The Government Neither knows nor makes decisions regarding the operation of intelligence services, which are always delegated to the final decision-maker, who is the judicial authority (…) Information affecting national security is always the courts. but not subject to the discretionary decision of the government of the Presidency,” President Pedro Sánchez said yesterday at the Congress of Deputies when he intervened to give an explanation for the espionage. software Israel Pegasus.
However, various legal sources were consulted. World Explain that the Supreme Court’s control over investigations conducted by the National Intelligence Center (CNI) is so limited, its intervention so time-bound, that it wants to credit the two magistrates appointed for authorizing its wiretapping. Responsibility for spying on Catalan pro-independence leaders. The CNI reports the development and results of its investigations to the executive, with proper control of the investigation in line with the government and never to the High Court.
take 11/2002 The Regulation of the National Intelligence Center in its Articles 1, 2 and 3 establishes that the function of the CNI is to protect the national interest by avoiding any danger to the State, to report its investigation to the President of the Government and to always submit Respecting the legal system. In other words, the CNI does not investigate the commission of crimes, but “is devoted to obtaining information for the purpose of preserving national security and reporting it to the government.”
For its part, through intelligence instructions, which is secret in nature, executive designs and approves every year the main objectives of our detective service in such a way that, when secret agents request authorization from a ts magistrate on a certain judicial intervention, the act of togdos in this state Limits itself exclusively to the analysis of those “existential issues” listed by the Executive for the purpose of preventing threats to the However, the CNI does not inform the court about the development of its investigation. nor about their consequences.
High Court sources state that the controlling magistrate, currently the magistrate of the controversial-administrative chamber Paul Luke and Magistrate of the Criminal Chamber Andres Martinez AriettaWiretaps requested by the CNI are limited to authorization or denial, by implementing the Intelligence Directive, which is approved annually, and where the Prime Minister himself defines the main challenges facing the country in terms of security.
There are many acts done by detective service in vain which are adopted without approval of High Court Control Magistrate as their plcet is not necessary. In fact, two judges of the Supreme Court intervene only in cases in which the investigation of the CNI interferes with the fundamental rights recognized in Articles 18.2 and 18.3 of the Constitution. Constitution Spanish, that is, on home violence and the interception of communication.
To this end, the judges assigned to this task specifically assess the “proportionality”, their “need” and “characteristic” of the requested measures in relation to the objectives set by the Intelligence Directive. His work is similar to that done by a guarantee judge. If telephone intervention is urgent, the controlling magistrate of the Supreme Court has 24 hours to approve it. If it’s not urgent, you have up to 72 hours.
Also, this Hole Telephone numbers can be authorized for a maximum period of three months. Only in the event that the CNI wishes to extend these communication interferences over a longer period of time, the intelligence service informs the judge of the consequences of the wiretapping, as the magistrate should be able to assess the usefulness of the interference in the fundamental right to espionage . before agreeing to the extension. Legal sources advised that this is the only time the detective service partially informs a Supreme Court magistrate of the development of its investigation.
On the other hand, various informant sources state that, on occasions, telephone interventions are authorized after the first request, while on other occasions, more information is requested from the detective service or denied simply on the grounds that They are not proportional.
In addition, court sources underscored that the work currently done by Judges Lucas and Martínez Arrieta is done in absolute discretion. They work side by side but with biggest reservations.
Therefore, when it was learned in the High Court that the former Director of CNI, aroused astonishment and dismay, peace stephen, was going to showcase the cars where the spying of Catalan independence leaders was authorized. “In the 20-year validity of the law regulating the CNI, full resolutions were never shown official secrets commission Deputy Congress. Cars are classified and secret substances. Sometimes a decision was declassified when requested by a judge during an investigation, but nothing more. The credibility of the CNI is at stake,” he concluded.
according to the norms of